Tatsiana Vadalazhskaja: Belarus basically has no cultural policy

The main problem with realization of major principles of UNESCO Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions is monopoly on regulating culture that the state has.

Recently a report that comprises results of research and monitoring of how Belarus implements UNESCO Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions was published. The monitoring was performed by the experts from the Centre for European Transformation (CET). The fact that Belarus has signed the Convention is an important step in harmonization of cultural policy and involving the country in Europe’s cultural space; however, the signature under the document isn’t enough for changes, state the authors of the research.

In order to introduce changes in the cultural policy political will of all the actors involved into or interested in this process are needed. Besides, adequate knowledge about the state of cultural sphere is required, which will enable building the “roadmap” of changes and following its realization.

Let us recall that this convention bides the countries-signatories to care about the cultural diversity and take all the required political measures for that. Signatories need to provide reports to UNESCO once in four years about the measures taken for preservation and encouragement of cultural expressions both at the country’s territory as well as at the international level.

Belarus should have had provided its first report in 2012; however, such document is missing in UNESCO’s database. At the time when the report prepared by CET was written Belarusan Ministry of Culture was preparing the report for UNESCO for 2016, inform the experts.

Tatsiana Vadalazhskaja, candidate of sociological sciences, senior analyst in the Centre for European Transformation (CET), told about the results of monitoring of Belarus’ implementation of the above-mentioned UNESCO Convention.

- Tell us about the key moments of the monitoring, please.

- First, it was the first attempt to make a review and evaluation of the cultural sphere within the frames of the Convention. The important thing here is that we offer the methodology of evaluating the implementation of the Convention that doesn’t exist.

Before now each country reported about the implementation of the Convention mainly through documenting the events that were taking place. Whereas we understand that it’s not enough to track the events; it is important to understand what long-term effects do these actions bring. But there is no methodology of such evaluation yet.

This problem is of concern at the UNESCO level, too. That is why this monitoring is not only the evaluation of the Belarusan situation, but also the input into the common development of methodology of evaluation of implementation of the Convention.

We offered five dimensions, according to which statistical and other objective data was gathered and expert evaluation was given. Unfortunately, experts that are based in state structures didn’t agree to take part in the monitoring for different reasons, that’s why expert evaluations reveal the opinion of the independent, non-state sphere.

It is also important to note that the Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions highlights the conditions for cultural development, i.e. how free cultural expression is, whether different actors are involved into the cultural cycle (state, business, and public sector), whether the interests in the cultural policy are adjusted and so on.

- How good, or, vice versa, how poorly is the Convention implemented in Belarus?

- The Convention is a traditionally mild mechanism of influencing the cultural policy; it sets the guiding lines. The results of our evaluation show that the problems with the realization of major principles of UNESCO Convention lie at the level of organization of the cultural sphere and cultural policy. First of all, it is the state’s monopolization of culture’s regulation, defining the directions for its development, funding methods, and so on.

With all that, as the experts noted, Belarus basically doesn’t have its own cultural policy. There is planning, resource management, distribution, but no policy. Apart from that, the decisive role in following the principles of the Convention have general conditions for freedom of expression, human rights, and freedom of associations that exist in the country.

It doesn’t relate to the cultural sphere specifically; it is rather general tendencies that extend to culture. And in result we observe “black lists”, unmotivated refusals in rent, unequal conditions in cultural activity, and so on. Division into loyal and non-loyal culture (the latter includes basically the whole nationally-oriented culture) becomes a hindrance for the development of culture itself as well as for its positive influence at the development of the society.

- What support culture gets from the state?

- On the one hand, we can say that it gets full support, in the meaning that the notion that the state has about culture includes complete control and dependence. And that’s where the volume and forms of support are fully dependent of what the state wants from this sphere. The research shows that this support is, generally, very unequal and quite weak.

On the other hand, we see the development of the non-state sector that lives and develops rather not “thanks to” but “instead of”. And, as the experts say, this sector doesn’t need support; it would be great if it gets rid of hindrances…

In general, the problem of supporting the cultural sphere on the part of the state is a problem of strategy chosen to develop this sphere and the chosen model. However, this question isn’t put for real discussion yet.